a future task in good hands methodological aspects of natural capital accounting burkhard...
TRANSCRIPT
A future task in good hands
Methodological Aspects of Natural Capital Accounting
Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft
Unit I 2.1: Legal Affairs, Economics and Ecologically Sound Regional Development
Features of Natural Capital
Adelivers future benefits or avoids future costs
or
provides options for future benefits or options for the avoidance of future cost
or
maintenance of existence is part of individual preferences (there is a willingness to pay)
B restoration takes considerable time and/or „money“
C all or a considerable part of it is not man-made
Note: Because of „B“ the -change from cropland to grassland is no change of natural capital, regarding the provisioning of agricultural products. -Urban or industrial land take, however, should be regarded as a loss
What is Natural Capital
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Different kinds of natural capital
Valuation (of changes) inExamples
CBA GDP Cap. Ac.
delivers future benefits
private bene-fits
contributing to additional (amounts) of products
consumer surplus +producer/land owner surplus/rent
additional value added
effects on price-level
consumer rents excluded ?
price of land (and stocks on it) ?
land/soil for agr. production
timber stock
reducing cost of production
none ?water resources (incl. quality)
public benefitswillingness to pay (stated and revealed)
(if existing:) maintenance cost
none landscape (beauty)
noneflood regulation by floodplains
provides options for future benefits or avoidance of future cost
changes in price if traded or tradable
prices (if traded) ?
genetic resources, e.g. bio-prospecting areas
willingness to pay or to accept/sell (stated)
(if existing:) maintenance cost
nonebiodiversity (species, habitats, genetic diversity)
maintenance of existence is part of individual preferences
Monetary Valutation of Natural Capital and its Benefits in CBA, GDP
and Capital Accounts
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
SNA – Rules for monetary accounting
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Transactions must show that the prices are real
Consumer surplus is not taken into account
These are reasonable rules for the economy (cautiosness)
But lead to shortcomings when accounting for national capital
Measuring Natural Capital: Extent and Condition
versus Expected Flows of Services
Two approaches for the measurement of ecosystem assets mentioned in SEEA / EEA:
•First, ecosystem assets are considered in terms of ecosystem condition and ecosystem extent.
•Second, ecosystem assets are considered as the estimated stock of (aggregated) expected ecosystem service flows. “There will not be a simple relationship between these two perspectives, rather the relationship is likely to be non-linear and variable over time.”
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc13/BG-SEEA-Ecosystem.pdf
Due to future changes in technology and demand very hard to assess
1
2
What to do with assets that are not yet used?
What to do with assets of same capacity but in regions with different demand?
Has an ecosystem one condition or different conditions for different services?
3
better use this approach?
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Different Specific or One General Natural Capital
► Different specific capital accounts for different kinds of ecosystem services:
contribution of ecosystems to: different criteria for good condition :
e.g.: agricultural production natural soil fertility
freshwater supplyfiltration rate, absence of pollutants in soils and geological layers, bufffering capacity against pollutants
flood protectionwater retention capacity in alluvial floodplains
recreationkind of land-use, diversity of land-uses, landscape elements
biodiversitynaturalness, contribution to the protection of endangered species
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
► One account for „one“ Natural Capital („Natural Capital“ regarded as one additional economic sector)
two possible solutions
A B
aggregation of different criteria for condition for the above mentioned different „specific“ natural capitals
one unifying criterion for condition
e.g. reversibility
resilience
of ecosystem functions?
of ecosystem services?
with regard to welfare?
naturalness
absence of pollution / anthropogenic stress
Different Specific or One General Natural Capital
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Examples for Specific Natural Capitals:Natural Soil Fertility
Agricultural yield potential according to Muencheberg Soil Quality Rating - raw data
National physical indicator:Sum of area sizes multiplied by the value of fertility according to the SQR
Possible monetary value: Sum of discounted future agricultural land rents on the basis of current prices
Source: © Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe 2013
Geoinformation: DTK 1000; © Vermessungsverwaltungen der Länder und BKG 2004
Ground Water
Chemical condition of groundwater sources
Possible national physical indicator:Capacity of groundwater sources with a good chemical condition
Possible monetary value for “degradation” /capital loss: Sum of discounted future additional cost for ground water purification
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Reference: Wasserwirtschaft in Deutschland (Arle et al. 2013)
Source: Umweltbundesamt, Daten der Bund/Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA), Berichtsportal WasserBLIcK/BfG, 01.22.2010
Flood Mitigation
Surface of available, submersible floodplain, not separated by dams, outside of settlement areas
Values in % of currently free submersible floodplain outside of settlement areas (absolute instead of % values are recommended)
Possible national physical indicator:Floodable plains outside residential areas, not separated by dams
Possible monetary value for “degradation”: Sum of discounted future additional damage cost
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Source: Ifuplan / ETH-Zürich 2014
Biodiversity / Habitats(Biotope Values - example from Berlin)
value class
biotope valuefrom - to
Possible national physical indicator:Sum of area sizes multiplied with biotovalue
Biotop values are used as exchange rates in offsetting schemes
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Source: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, Berlin
„Capital stock“ of
high-nature-value
ecosystems in
Germany
High-Nature-Value Habitat / Ecosystem Area (ha)% of land-cover
Euro / m2
Value (Mio. €)
Dwarf shrub heathlands 83,170 0.22 41.83 34,790.01
Natural and semi-natural dry grasslands 99,720 0.27 8.06 8,037.43
Molinea meadows 14,000 0.04 18.51 2,591.40
Riparian grasslands and tall herbaceous perennial vegetation of moist to wet sites
37,700 0.10 6.14 2,314.78
Low intensively used meadows 179,000 0.48 6.14 10,990.60
and swamps free of woodland 11,100 0.03 9.80 1,087.80
Other types of agricultural grasslands with a high species diversity
447,264 1.19 2.66 11,897.22
Arable land with threatened herbaceous vegetation communities
473,124 1.26 0.49 2,318.31
Low intensively managed vineyards 7,380 0.02 13.31 982.28
Traditionally managed orchards 350,000 0.93 9.75 34,125.00
Low intensively used ponds for fish farming 3,150 0.01 48.93 1,541.30
Copses, thickets, scrub, hedgerows and tree rows in agricultural used areas
750,000 2.00 16.28 122,100.00
Natural woods and low intensively used species-rich forests
734,438 1.96 18.44 135,430.28
Pasture woodland 31,950 0.09 20.64 6,594.48
Coppice and coppice with standard 182,813 0.49 4.47 8,171.72
Nature-like woodland edge communities 3,450 0.01 22.79 786.26
Species-rich herbaceous forest fringe communities 788 0.00 2.82 22.21
Raised bogs including less degraded restoreable forms 67,489 0.18195.4
6131,914.41
Transition mires and strongly degraded raised bogs 78,498 0.21127.4
2100,022.52
Nature-like running and standing surface waters 246,675 0.66 48.93 120,698.08
Total 3,555,033 9.48 736,416.07
Valuation Basis: Restoration costs and restoration time
Method: Habitat Equivalency Analysis used in off schemes
Result:80% of the value of Germany´s productive capital / equipment
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Source: Schweppe-Kraft, Natural Capital in Germany 2009
A Pragmatic Way for Considering Site Specific Demand for Site Specific Services
Values in % of currently free submersible floodplain outside of settlement areas (absolute instead of % values are recommended)
Possible pragmatic solution:
Accounting of retention area separately for locations with influence on areas that are more or less threatened by flooding
Accounting of recreation areas separately for locations with high or low demand for recreation
Agricultural products and thus also the natural capital that contributes to agricultural production has (more or less) the same value regardless of where production takes place. With natural capital that prevents us e.g. from flood damages or for recreation areas, it is quite different.
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
A possible way towards one natural capital on the basis of an ecosystem ranking for different specific services
CLC-Ecosystem
Condition Water retentionErosion control
Pollination∑ / Rank /
Value
Wood
FFH high: █ (4) █ █ █ █ █ (12)
semi-natural high: █ (4) █ ▄ █ █ ▄ (11)
less intensive high: █ (4) █ ▄ █ █ ▄ (11)
intensive moderate: ▄ (3) ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ (9)
Grassland
FFH low: ■ (2) ■ █ ■ ■ █ (8)
semi-natural low : ■ (2) ■ █ ■ ■ █ (8)
less intensive low: ■ (2) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ (6)
intensive low: ■(2) ■ ▪ ■ ■ ▪ (5)
Cropland
HNV very low: ▪ (1) ▪ ■ ▪ ▪ ■ (4)
organic very low: ▪ (1) ■ ■ ▪ ■ ■ (5)
Soil conserving very low: ▪ (1) ■ ▪ ▪ ▪ ■ (4)
intensive very low: ▪ (1) ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ (3)
Ranking of the capacity of ecosystems for different services of
Assumption: surrounding ecological and economic conditions being the same
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Relevance of ecological and economic conditions of surrounding areas for
the relevance of / demand for services
CLC-Ecosystem
surrounding conditions
Erosion control
Woodlowlands ▪
highlands █
Grasslandlowlands ▪
highlands ■
Croplandlowlands ▪
highlands ▪
► The future value of services is highly dependent on where an ecosystem is situated
► The influence of place on the value of an ecosystem is much more relevant than the influence of the condition of the ecosystem on the service
► Neglecting the influence of place/location could lead to a misinterpretation of landuse changes
► Possible solution: Accounting for different types of locations
CLC-Ecosystem
surrounding conditions
Pollination
Woodwood, grassland ▪
insect pollinated crops, orchards
▄
GrasslandWood, grassland ▪
insect pollinated crops, orchards
█
Croplandhighlands ▪
insect pollinated crops, orchards
▪
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
A possible way towards one natural capital on the basis of a
naturalness/resilience ranking
CLC-Ecosystem
naturalness/resilience compared with other CLC-types
special sub-typenaturalness
within CLC-typeranking within all
sub-types
Wood high: █ (4)
FFH high: █ (4) 7 ?
semi-natural high: █ (4) 6 ?
less intensive high: █ (4) 4 ?
intensive moderate: ▄ (3) 3 ?
Grassland moderate: ▄ (3)
FFH low: ■ (2) 6 ?
semi-natural low : ■ (2) 4 ?
less intensive low: ■ (2) 3 ?
intensive low: ■(2) 2 ?
Cropland very low: ▪ (1)
HNV very low: ▪ (1) 5 ?
organic very low: ▪ (1) 3 ?
Soil conserving very low: ▪ (1) 2 ?
intensive very low: ▪ (1) 1 ?
Expert workshop on key issues in Natural Capital Accounting, 19 September 20014, IEEP, Brussels
Conclusions / Recommendations
Arguments drawn from the first approach (specific natural capitals according to different ecosystem services) would likely deliver the most convincing arguments in practical political debates
One overall indicator for natural capital, especially a kind of resilience indicator, would satisfy the ecologic community and may fit best for public communication as well as „high-level“ politics
All three ways of accounting have their own specific opportunities, shortcomings and risks
Try both ways!
A future task in good hands
Many thanks for your kind attention